Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Tax Application 273 of 2022) [2025] UGTAT 9 (20 April 2025)
The Tribunal held that the imported cardless CAMs were decryption devices, not television reception apparatus, and upheld classification under HS 8529.90.00.
Commissioner General and Another v Airtel Uganda Limited [2023] UGSC 33 (12 September 2023)
The Supreme Court held that under Section 65(3) of the Value Added Tax Act, penal tax accrues on unpaid VAT from the due date, regardless of whether the taxpayer has lodged an objection or paid 30% of the disputed tax as required by the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The Court found that neither the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act nor the Constitution expressly suspends the accrual of penal tax during the pendency of objection proceedings or appeals. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation of tax laws must be based on clear language, and no suspension of penal tax can be implied where Parliame…
Source excerpt
Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 13 (17 February 2023)
High Court partly allowed an appeal over tax refunds on motor vehicle benefits, finding the appellants proved private-use days, but limiting relief on depreciation to 1 July 2018 onward.
Uganda Revenue Authority v COWI A/S (Civil Appeal 34 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 187 (18 October 2021)
The High Court held that services supplied by COWI A/S’s Denmark head office to its Ugandan branch were imported services subject to VAT, and allowed URA’s appeal.
Uganda Revenue Authority v COWI A/S (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2020) [2021] UGCA 134 (18 October 2021)
The court held that Regulation 13 (3) (a) of The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations, 2011, lawfully treats a branch in Uganda and its overseas head office as separate taxable persons for VAT purposes, even though they are part of the same legal entity. This regulatory approach is consistent with the principle of tax neutrality and the destination principle underlying VAT, ensuring parity between domestic and imported services. The services rendered by the head office in Denmark to the Ugandan branch, for which costs were allocated, constituted imported services consumed in Uganda and wer…
Source excerpt
Kahamutima v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 51 of 2021) [2021] UGTAT 14 (21 September 2021)
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because the dispute had already been determined by the Magistrate's Court, making it res judicata. The Tribunal emphasized that once a matter is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be brought before another forum in a different form. Additionally, the applicant failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the East African Community Customs Management Act, which requires an aggrieved party to first apply to the Commissioner for review of a customs decision before approaching the Tribunal. Since the…
Source excerpt
East Africa Cranes Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 51 of 2018) [2021] UGTAT 9 (21 January 2021)
The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to a refund of Shs. 275,908,480 for the period 2011 to 2013, as this amount was clearly supported by the agreed facts and not time-barred. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that an audit could be indefinitely delayed, holding that audits must be conducted within a reasonable period. Regarding the nonrefundable overpaid tax for 2008 to 2010, the Tribunal held that while statutory time limits bar refund applications, there is no express provision barring the use of excess tax to offset current or future liabilities. The Tribunal r…
Source excerpt
Akiiki Rwaheru & 13945 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2015) [2020] UGCA 2124 (9 November 2020)
The Court of Appeal held that the imposition and collection of 'Domestic VAT' at a rate of 15% on imported goods by the Uganda Revenue Authority was illegal, not merely an irregularity. The VAT Act and its subsidiary legislation only authorize VAT at 18% on imports, and there is no statutory provision for an additional 15% 'Domestic VAT.' The respondent's reliance on section 32(1)(c) of the VAT Act was misplaced, as that provision can only be invoked on a case-by-case basis for individual taxpayers unlikely to pay tax, not as a blanket assessment for all importers. The constitutional requirem…
Source excerpt
Kasai Plascon (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 135 of 2020) [2020] UGTAT 28 (11 September 2020)
The Tribunal dismissed Kansai Plascon’s application to extend time to object to a tax assessment, finding no illegality, irrationality, or impropriety in URA’s refusal.
East African Investment Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 6 of 2019) [2020] UGTAT 22 (7 September 2020)
The Tribunal held that East African Investment Limited was entitled to part of its VAT input credit, including qualifying pre-registration supplies and services incidental to goods.
